1 David Yakobson
From: Caro Vilain <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2026 11:07 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16G
EXTERNAL
Dear Council,
I wanted to share a few thoughts on item 16G before you consider it tonight.
As we strive to become a safe, sustainable, and accessible city, I believe it's important to be proactive about issues that may arise with certain devices, such as e-motorcycles, and I appreciate wanting to tackle the issue before it becomes more serious.
It's crucial that we consider these things thoughtfully, so we don't find ourselves passing harmful policies such as the recent e-bike laws in New Jersey that will create barriers to active mobility and make it much less accessible and much less inviting to many.
As confusion between e-bikes and e-motorcycles grows, I believe education has a role. Many people, including people who purchase and use these devices, are entirely unaware that these are vastly different from e-bikes. E-bikes are safe, regulated devices that make active mobility much more accessible to many. They allow people to transport children, goods, pets, and themselves further than a regular bicycle, and more safely, efficiently, and sustainably than with a motor vehicle. These devices play an essential role in reaching our sustainability and vision zero goals. They are also currently the best-selling electric vehicle, so they are here to stay.
Modified e-bikes and e-motorcycles have a place as well, but we can all agree that going 40mph in a bikeway can quickly become problematic. And while I don't believe they are our biggest issue at this point, I appreciate council being proactive about it. Places where they have become more prominent have been struggling to regulate them, and we have an opportunity to be a leader in this matter.
This is why I believe that the focus for now should be on making the distinction between these types of vehicles . The goal isn't to generate inaccurate headlines saying "Santa Monica bans e-bikes in bikeways" and deter people from using this form of transportation that benefits us all.
I have issues with the memo stating "This item advances a safety-first strategy that emphasizes prevention over punishment," and then listing "Enhanced fines and impound authority" as the first item.
While I'd be the first to tell you that signs and education alone tend not to be enough when it comes to traffic safety, I strongly believe that starting with education could have an impact here. While enforcement plays a role in traffic safety, and while I appreciate council wanting to address this before it becomes a more serious issue, I don't believe punishment and fines should be our main focus at this point.
Item 16-G
January 27, 2026
Item 16-G
January 27, 2026
2 I'd recommend working with local schools to educate teenagers and their parents on these devices and the possible consequences of using these devices improperly (in bikeways, at high speeds, without adequate gear or licensing,...). I'd also recommend clearer signage around our bikeways, considering the significant number of visitors who use these devices and aren't aware of local policies. Nearby companies (both in Santa Monica and West LA/Venice) whose customers tend to use our bikeways should likely also be informed of the updates.
I trust that you can handle this matter thoughtfully, truly emphasizing prevention over punishment.
Thank you,
Caro Vilain
90404
Item 16-G
January 27, 2026
Item 16-G
January 27, 2026